On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, "Argotti, Yann" <yann.argotti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, 03 Oct 2016, Jairo Miramontes >> > <jairo.daniel.miramontes.caton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > This week regressions >> > >> > In the past we used "regression", "bisect_pending", and "bisected" in >> > the bugzilla "Keywords" field. Can we start using those again, please? >> >> I think this is a very good idea Jani. So we can start to scrub current >> regression (and then igt linked one) and update accordingly. >> Yann > > Two additional thoughts are: > - add "regression_pending" (vs "regression") as well as keyword to > indicate where bug reporter has doubt on the fact it is or not a > regression. I think it should be enough, at least for a start (or should I say re-start), to freely use "regression" when things worked in the past but do not work anymore. We can then drop the keyword if it's not proven to be a regression. No strong feelings on "regression_pending", though. But I don't think you can add keywords at will, I think the field only accepts a predefined set of keywords. So you'd need to talk to Ander or Martin (Cc'd) to get the new one to bugzilla. > - either use of "regression" or "regression_pending" must be coming > with good & bad commit when reporting the bug Agreed. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
